Jessica did beautifully, so poised and clear. Rob's is just starting. Both are avoiding any eye contact with Blob which is probably just as damning as any testimony to date.

They both mentioned that after Bob changed his alibi re being home around 6 pm, he told them he was worried that Jane wasn't there. At 6 pm? That makes no sense. Wish it came out that BB explained the change as "I forgot about going home." Really? On such a memorable night when his wife goes missing he's not acutely aware of where he was and when?

Regarding the discrepancy about when he saw her bag (to know she had been home), iirc he said he saw her work-bag (briefcase), not her handbag. Only the purse was found in her SUV, not the briefcase, so I think this discrepancy is a non-issue.

Very surprised that Jane was encouraged re repairing the marriage per Jessica. Hope springs eternal apparently, especially in an optimist like Jane. Hopefully, there will be more testimony from friends about her financial concerns re a divorce.

Especially for female jurors, it probably didn't sit well at all that BB gave a family heirloom left for Jane to his mistress. His excuse "put it in the drawer for a year, no one complained, so green light to give it away" is flabbergasting.

Overall, this morning: Liar, liar, blue underpants on fire.

____________________________________________________Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness.

Last edited by EllsBells on Thu 23 Oct 2014, 5:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

____________________________________________________Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness.

Wow, a new low even for Blob, holding Jane's ashes hostage from the Englebrecht family unless they supported him. Hell is not enough of a punishment for him.

____________________________________________________Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness.

Last edited by EllsBells on Thu 23 Oct 2014, 4:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

____________________________________________________Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness.

We ALL know that "Giving the rest to Grandma" is a euphemism for "Giving the rest to BOB" ! Give me a freaking break! The jurors don't know this yet, but they will! Oh they will learn about evil henchwoman Nancy and her side sick...

At the rate this trial is progressing, it will be ages before I need the answer to this, but I'm curious about what it will take to put BB away forever with no hope of parole. What needs to be proven for him to be convicted of First Degree Premeditated Murder? Does he need to have been there? Been part of the physical murder? Or is it enough that he planned it?

meandmyshadow wrote:We ALL know that "Giving the rest to Grandma" is a euphemism for "Giving the rest to BOB" ! Give me a freaking break! The jurors don't know this yet, but they will! Oh they will learn about evil henchwoman Nancy and her side sick...

Imo, the prosecution did not do a good job making clear what went on with the money. Mentioned it was given to Nancy for "fees" but never heard legal fees for Bob, and then maybe it was loan repayment to her. The whole thing was very confusing and didn't score any points for our side from my point of view.

BB's such a cad, he was well aware the 401K was being held up until he was cleared of her murder, so he "generously" offers it to the kids knowing full well he'd never have to follow through with that.

Blob pulled a Clinton, saying "I've never had sexual relations with those women," a technicality because as Janet said, "The chairman of the board couldn't show up for work."

What idiot opens a gift (& a fairly personal one) from his mistress --- a supposedly casual church friend --- in front of his family on Christmas Day?

I hope Jane's family portrays the full anguish from the Blob holding Jane's ashes hostage until they supported him. Of all the egregious things he's done, that's got to be about the worst other than the murder itself. If a juror, that would seal my vote no matter what the other evidence shows as he deserves to be put away for that cruelty alone.

____________________________________________________Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness.

AnalyzeThis wrote:At the rate this trial is progressing, it will be ages before I need the answer to this, but I'm curious about what it will take to put BB away forever with no hope of parole. What needs to be proven for him to be convicted of First Degree Premeditated Murder? Does he need to have been there? Been part of the physical murder? Or is it enough that he planned it?

Sorry if this has been discussed already at some point.

Actually the charge is conspiracy to commit murder --- he could have been on the other side of the moon when the murder happened, as long as they can prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) he planned it, he'll be locked away for good.

Then there are the other charges such as obstruction and witness tampering, which seem much more straightforward to prove, that also carry long prison terms.

____________________________________________________Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness.

EllsBells wrote:Actually the charge is conspiracy to commit murder --- he could have been on the other side of the moon when the murder happened, as long as they can prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) he planned it, he'll be locked away for good.

Then there are the other charges such as obstruction and witness tampering, which seem much more straightforward to prove, that also carry long prison terms.

Judge Evans began the hearing by reading the charges against Bob Bashara to the jury. They include First Degree Premeditated Murder (automatic life in prison), plus Solicitation of Murder, Obstruction of Justice, Witness Intimidation and Subordination of Perjury.

EllsBells wrote:Actually the charge is conspiracy to commit murder --- he could have been on the other side of the moon when the murder happened, as long as they can prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) he planned it, he'll be locked away for good.

Then there are the other charges such as obstruction and witness tampering, which seem much more straightforward to prove, that also carry long prison terms.

Judge Evans began the hearing by reading the charges against Bob Bashara to the jury. They include First Degree Premeditated Murder (automatic life in prison), plus Solicitation of Murder, Obstruction of Justice, Witness Intimidation and Subordination of Perjury.

Thanks, Analyze, I missed that. Good question, as the prosecutors stated in the opening that there is no doubt that Gentz committed the physical act of murdering Jane, so they wouldn't have charged this unless there is a connection to planning it. Wikipedia said premeditated murder "is the crime of wrongfully and intentionally causing the death of another human being." Perhaps the "intentionally causing" encompasses planning or hiring a murder.

____________________________________________________Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness.

I'm surprised none of the news stations have had attorneys comment on this. Anything I could find by searching wasn't clear.

Joe's story was that Bob forced him to murder Jane at gunpoint, wasn't it? It seems like that would constitute First Degree Murder (on BB's part), but of course "seems like" is meaningless. But even if it wasn't at gunpoint, if Bob planned it and Bob was there, Joe becomes the murder weapon so to speak. But would love to hear a knowledgeable legal opinion on this charge and the evidence needed to support it.

AnalyzeThis wrote:I'm surprised none of the news stations have had attorneys comment on this. Anything I could find by searching wasn't clear.

Joe's story was that Bob forced him to murder Jane at gunpoint, wasn't it? It seems like that would constitute First Degree Murder (on BB's part), but of course "seems like" is meaningless. But even if it wasn't at gunpoint, if Bob planned it and Bob was there, Joe becomes the murder weapon so to speak. But would love to hear a knowledgeable legal opinion on this charge and the evidence needed to support it.

I too would like to hear more from legal analysts, there seemed to be more of that in the media prior to trial.

I agree, it could well be that the (alleged) matter of Bob forcing Joe at gunpoint is what makes this First Degree by meeting the 'intentionally causing' criteria, irrespective of planning or conspiring.

It does seem a gun's use is going to be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt without Joes's testimony as judged believable by the jury. Only 3 people knew whether a gun was used or not --- and one can't testify, one won't, and one is not believable if he does.

It does help enormously that Mr. Big Mouth lied on national tv that he didn't own a gun when in fact he had an unregistered one and then went to great lengths to hide it. After all, why get an unregistered gun, lie about it, and then hide it if you're not afraid that it would corroborate Joe's version? He would have been better off claiming, "Yes I own a registered gun, but that does not prove using it on Gentz." It looks much less guilty that way, but basically imo that alone does not meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

Then again, probably the jury realizes by now "if Bob's mouth is moving, then he's lying" and won't give him any benefit of the doubt.

____________________________________________________Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness.

AnalyzeThis wrote:At the rate this trial is progressing, it will be ages before I need the answer to this, but I'm curious about what it will take to put BB away forever with no hope of parole. What needs to be proven for him to be convicted of First Degree Premeditated Murder? Does he need to have been there? Been part of the physical murder? Or is it enough that he planned it?

Sorry if this has been discussed already at some point.

750.316 First degree murder; penalty; definitions.Sec. 316. (1) A person who commits any of the following is guilty of first degree murder and shall bepunished by imprisonment for life:(a) Murder perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or any other willful, deliberate, and premeditatedkilling.

AnalyzeThis wrote:I'm surprised none of the news stations have had attorneys comment on this. Anything I could find by searching wasn't clear.

Joe's story was that Bob forced him to murder Jane at gunpoint, wasn't it? It seems like that would constitute First Degree Murder (on BB's part), but of course "seems like" is meaningless. But even if it wasn't at gunpoint, if Bob planned it and Bob was there, Joe becomes the murder weapon so to speak. But would love to hear a knowledgeable legal opinion on this charge and the evidence needed to support it.

I too would like to hear more from legal analysts, there seemed to be more of that in the media prior to trial.

I agree, it could well be that the (alleged) matter of Bob forcing Joe at gunpoint is what makes this First Degree by meeting the 'intentionally causing' criteria, irrespective of planning or conspiring.

It does seem a gun's use is going to be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt without Joes's testimony as judged believable by the jury. Only 3 people knew whether a gun was used or not --- and one can't testify, one won't, and one is not believable if he does.

It does help enormously that Mr. Big Mouth lied on national tv that he didn't own a gun when in fact he had an unregistered one and then went to great lengths to hide it. After all, why get an unregistered gun, lie about it, and then hide it if you're not afraid that it would corroborate Joe's version? He would have been better off claiming, "Yes I own a registered gun, but that does not prove using it on Gentz." It looks much less guilty that way, but basically imo that alone does not meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

Then again, probably the jury realizes by now "if Bob's mouth is moving, then he's lying" and won't give him any benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps there is a lawyer on some news reporting venue that has commented on some of these issues. I have not seen or heard of any since Todd Flood who was giving legal interpretations earlier in this journey for justice. I've looked at definitions of "hearsay" evidence and just become more confused. If there are any legal minds or lawyers out there perhaps they can answer these questions. 1. With JG refusing to testify can any of his statements or interviews given to LE be presented through tape, testimony, written statements. Or without him (unavailable?) would it be considered hearsay evidence and thus not allowed ?2. Witnesses who testify what the Blob said to them regarding a confession or admission of guilt be acceptable ? I would think they would be allowed because the Blob is available to refute or deny those allegations by those testifying against him in cross examination.3. Witnesses who relate the series of events as told to them by JG. For instance like Steve Virgona or Frances. Would they be allowed to testify as to what JG revealed to them. Or would that be hearsay evidence and disallowed because JG is not available to confirm or deny he said those things ?If we had legal interpretations for those witnesses it would affect just how confident we could be in getting a conviction by placing Blob at the scene. So far IMO there is no smoking gun yet but at least some really solid characterization of the defendant. The cell phone placement has been the most devastating. But remember, we have been following this drama for a couple of years and the jury probably does not know as much about this sick sh..t as we do. I recall watching almost all of the OJ trial and in the end was baffled why the prosecution did not piece the events of that evening on a post board or present a coherent re-enactment based on the testimony and evidence. In other words, almost a re-enactment based on the facts as presented using a timeline. There is so much testimony about the double life that the real focus of the crime gets lost in the background. Not so much for us because we have followed since 2012 but for those who are asked to absorb all this at once(the jury and sometimes even the judge).

I believe that All of Joe's testimony can be used.More important though is the fact that Bob's conviction shows him willing and able to hire some one to kill someone else...this supports the contention that he did that with Jane.He will be convicted for his own evil.As for how long he stays in prison,The first time he tries the good old boy Mayor of Cell block E bullshit rap of his...someone will doubtless shank him with a sharpened toothbrush...Master Bob won't find things so sweet swimming with the big fishes...

Pointed Barbs wrote:I believe that All of Joe's testimony can be used.More important though is the fact that Bob's conviction shows him willing and able to hire some one to kill someone else...this supports the contention that he did that with Jane.He will be convicted for his own evil.As for how long he stays in prison,The first time he tries the good old boy Mayor of Cell block E bullshit rap of his...someone will doubtless shank him with a sharpened toothbrush...Master Bob won't find things so sweet swimming with the big fishes...

Perhaps they'll also teach him to find his inner submissive...

Here is one more legal question. It is public knowledge that the Blob is serving time for soliciting a hit on JG. However, I do not think they can mention his current status (convicted criminal) in the trial or for what reason he is currently serving time. Thus, you see him in street clothes rather than prison garb. I think its considered prejudicial to even mention the fact he is currently incarcerated. I may be wrong but sure would appreciate some clarification from a legal expert.

smallal wrote:Here is one more legal question. It is public knowledge that the Blob is serving time for soliciting a hit on JG. However, I do not think they can mention his current status (convicted criminal) in the trial or for what reason he is currently serving time. Thus, you see him in street clothes rather than prison garb. I think its considered prejudicial to even mention the fact he is currently incarcerated. I may be wrong but sure would appreciate some clarification from a legal expert.

In their opening statements both Lindsey and Diallo mentioned that BB had pled guilty to hiring a hitman to kill Gentz.

"Lindsey played his plea in court (during opening statements), "I foolishly and regrettably plead guilty to trying to hire a hitman" Bashara told the judge in that case."

[As an aside: If the wxyz quote is an accurate one, BB is actually saying he regrets the foolishness of pleading guilty, not that he regrets the foolishness of trying to hire a hitman. Hmm ... typical BB doublespeak]

Obviously he is being led in and out of court by uniformed guards, so the jury could figure he's still incarcerated. I think it's the optics of seeing someone in prison clothes that is deemed prejudicial, not knowing that he's committed a crime.

Of course Bob knows who he was yelling "do it now, do it now" on the phone while in Oregon. The defense contends it wasn't Gentz, but what are the odds that they put someone else on the stand who says he was the person talking to Bob? If they don't, isn't the logical conclusion that he was indeed talking to Gentz?

____________________________________________________Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness.

smallal wrote:Here is one more legal question. It is public knowledge that the Blob is serving time for soliciting a hit on JG. However, I do not think they can mention his current status (convicted criminal) in the trial or for what reason he is currently serving time. Thus, you see him in street clothes rather than prison garb. I think its considered prejudicial to even mention the fact he is currently incarcerated. I may be wrong but sure would appreciate some clarification from a legal expert.

In their opening statements both Lindsey and Diallo mentioned that BB had pled guilty to hiring a hitman to kill Gentz.

"Lindsey played his plea in court (during opening statements), "I foolishly and regrettably plead guilty to trying to hire a hitman" Bashara told the judge in that case."

[As an aside: If the wxyz quote is an accurate one, BB is actually saying he regrets the foolishness of pleading guilty, not that he regrets the foolishness of trying to hire a hitman. Hmm ... typical BB doublespeak]

Obviously he is being led in and out of court by uniformed guards, so the jury could figure he's still incarcerated. I think it's the optics of seeing someone in prison clothes that is deemed prejudicial, not knowing that he's committed a crime.

Of course Bob knows who he was yelling "do it now, do it now" on the phone while in Oregon. The defense contends it wasn't Gentz, but what are the odds that they put someone else on the stand who says he was the person talking to Bob? If they don't, isn't the logical conclusion that he was indeed talking to Gentz?

Thanks for clarification. I went back and watched the opening again. The most annoying thing is how much disrespect and distraction Lillian Diallo presents during Lisa Lindsay's opening. Around 5:30 she moves her chair to block Lisa, at 8:30 she moves another chair, is constantly shaking her head, acting as if she is taking notes, opening and closing her tablet, just really agitating and annoying. Anyone else notice this ?

Pointed Barbs wrote:I believe that All of Joe's testimony can be used.More important though is the fact that Bob's conviction shows him willing and able to hire some one to kill someone else...this supports the contention that he did that with Jane.He will be convicted for his own evil.As for how long he stays in prison,The first time he tries the good old boy Mayor of Cell block E bullshit rap of his...someone will doubtless shank him with a sharpened toothbrush...Master Bob won't find things so sweet swimming with the big fishes...

smallal wrote:Here is one more legal question. It is public knowledge that the Blob is serving time for soliciting a hit on JG. However, I do not think they can mention his current status (convicted criminal) in the trial or for what reason he is currently serving time. Thus, you see him in street clothes rather than prison garb. I think its considered prejudicial to even mention the fact he is currently incarcerated. I may be wrong but sure would appreciate some clarification from a legal expert.

In their opening statements both Lindsey and Diallo mentioned that BB had pled guilty to hiring a hitman to kill Gentz.

"Lindsey played his plea in court (during opening statements), "I foolishly and regrettably plead guilty to trying to hire a hitman" Bashara told the judge in that case."

[As an aside: If the wxyz quote is an accurate one, BB is actually saying he regrets the foolishness of pleading guilty, not that he regrets the foolishness of trying to hire a hitman. Hmm ... typical BB doublespeak]

Obviously he is being led in and out of court by uniformed guards, so the jury could figure he's still incarcerated. I think it's the optics of seeing someone in prison clothes that is deemed prejudicial, not knowing that he's committed a crime.

Of course Bob knows who he was yelling "do it now, do it now" on the phone while in Oregon. The defense contends it wasn't Gentz, but what are the odds that they put someone else on the stand who says he was the person talking to Bob? If they don't, isn't the logical conclusion that he was indeed talking to Gentz?

smallal wrote:Here is one more legal question. It is public knowledge that the Blob is serving time for soliciting a hit on JG. However, I do not think they can mention his current status (convicted criminal) in the trial or for what reason he is currently serving time. Thus, you see him in street clothes rather than prison garb. I think its considered prejudicial to even mention the fact he is currently incarcerated. I may be wrong but sure would appreciate some clarification from a legal expert.

In their opening statements both Lindsey and Diallo mentioned that BB had pled guilty to hiring a hitman to kill Gentz.

"Lindsey played his plea in court (during opening statements), "I foolishly and regrettably plead guilty to trying to hire a hitman" Bashara told the judge in that case."

[As an aside: If the wxyz quote is an accurate one, BB is actually saying he regrets the foolishness of pleading guilty, not that he regrets the foolishness of trying to hire a hitman. Hmm ... typical BB doublespeak]

Obviously he is being led in and out of court by uniformed guards, so the jury could figure he's still incarcerated. I think it's the optics of seeing someone in prison clothes that is deemed prejudicial, not knowing that he's committed a crime.

Of course Bob knows who he was yelling "do it now, do it now" on the phone while in Oregon. The defense contends it wasn't Gentz, but what are the odds that they put someone else on the stand who says he was the person talking to Bob? If they don't, isn't the logical conclusion that he was indeed talking to Gentz?

Thanks for clarification. I went back and watched the opening again. The most annoying thing is how much disrespect and distraction Lillian Diallo presents during Lisa Lindsay's opening. Around 5:30 she moves her chair to block Lisa, at 8:30 she moves another chair, is constantly shaking her head, acting as if she is taking notes, opening and closing her tablet, just really agitating and annoying. Anyone else notice this ?

I'm no lawyer, but from the testimony we've heard so far it's not looking good for big Bob. It's a shame Jane's kids had to testify, but from them the jury learned about his financial motive among other things. We have several more witnesses to hear from. I'm thinking by the time the prosecution is done, he'll be convicted. Jmho

wwjd wrote:I'm no lawyer, but from the testimony we've heard so far it's not looking good for big Bob. It's a shame Jane's kids had to testify, but from them the jury learned about his financial motive among other things. We have several more witnesses to hear from. I'm thinking by the time the prosecution is done, he'll be convicted. Jmho

Pointed Barbs wrote:I believe that All of Joe's testimony can be used.More important though is the fact that Bob's conviction shows him willing and able to hire some one to kill someone else...this supports the contention that he did that with Jane.He will be convicted for his own evil.As for how long he stays in prison,The first time he tries the good old boy Mayor of Cell block E bullshit rap of his...someone will doubtless shank him with a sharpened toothbrush...Master Bob won't find things so sweet swimming with the big fishes...

wwjd wrote:I'm no lawyer, but from the testimony we've heard so far it's not looking good for big Bob. It's a shame Jane's kids had to testify, but from them the jury learned about his financial motive among other things.

True, the jury learned more about the financial motive (including Jane felt trapped financially in the marriage), plus that BB is a compulsive liar and manipulator who had to strong arm his own family for support, not to mention shamelessly blackmailing Jane's family over the ashes.

But imo most importantly the jury learned based on the kids' refusal to make eye contact with him and what they didn't say that they believe he murdered their mom. Very damaging testimony coming for those closest to Blob and the situation.

.

Last edited by EllsBells on Mon 27 Oct 2014, 3:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

____________________________________________________Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness.

"Amy Lange: Good morning!!! Hope everybody had a great weekend! We are just getting settled in here - photographers setting up, detectives bringing in boxes of evidence in brown bags, attorneys starting to file in. This is the third week of testimony and the prosecution has more than 80 witnesses on their witness list - we've been through 20-some so I'm told the judge has told the attorneys it's time to pick up the pace. I'm told a number of witnesses could be called this week - from a furniture store owner Bashara tried to pay to hire a hitman to kill Joseph Gentz to a former tenant of Bashara's to the sister and mother of Jane Bashara. There are also a number of witnesses who were here last week but were not called yet so it's unclear who is going when - will let you know as soon as the first witness takes the stand!

bbmWell geez!!! How can anyone be told to "pick up the pace" when court STARTS at 10-10:30, breaks for 1/2 an hour at 11, takes two hour lunches, then tells everyone testimony is done for the day at 3 - 3:30?? Not to mention no Fridays, missing days willy nilly, blah blah blah. Come on-- this is NOT the attorneys' issue... Smh.

____________________________________________________You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result. ~ Ghandi

"Amy Lange: Good morning!!! Hope everybody had a great weekend! We are just getting settled in here - photographers setting up, detectives bringing in boxes of evidence in brown bags, attorneys starting to file in. This is the third week of testimony and the prosecution has more than 80 witnesses on their witness list - we've been through 20-some so I'm told the judge has told the attorneys it's time to pick up the pace. I'm told a number of witnesses could be called this week - from a furniture store owner Bashara tried to pay to hire a hitman to kill Joseph Gentz to a former tenant of Bashara's to the sister and mother of Jane Bashara. There are also a number of witnesses who were here last week but were not called yet so it's unclear who is going when - will let you know as soon as the first witness takes the stand!

bbmWell geez!!! How can anyone be told to "pick up the pace" when court STARTS at 10-10:30, breaks for 1/2 an hour at 11, takes two hour lunches, then tells everyone testimony is done for the day at 3 - 3:30?? Not to mention no Fridays, missing days willy nilly, blah blah blah. Come on-- this is NOT the attorneys' issue... Smh.

I completely agree, her poor management of trial time is shocking. To me, it shows a complete disregard for the jurors' sacrifice. With only roughly a half day of testimony for 4 days a week, this trial will go up to Christmas at this pace. It's all Evans's fault, the attorneys are ready, organized and moving it along smoothly. Oh yeh, then there are the judge's unnecessary and off the wall questions. Time to un-elect Judge Evans.

.

____________________________________________________Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness.

And of course Judge Evans requires the clearly irrelevant parts of the tape to be played, just so SHE can drag out the trial and then scold the lawyers for that when they are totally blameless. She is off her rocker SMH.

Another Hunter tweet:

"The #bobbashara trial has seen some riveting, lurid testimony. Now, we're listening to details about Steve Tibaudo's gall bladder problems."

____________________________________________________Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness.

Another 4 hours of testimony courtesy of Judge Evans on what was supposed to be a full day, incredible.

Loved Mrs. Engelbrecht's quip: "I don't know why he wanted a slave, he had one in Jane. She worked and made all of the money."

____________________________________________________Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness.

The introduction of Blob to JG was in 2011 ? Through Steve, just after Blob asked him if he knew anyone that would T-Bone a tennant ? And Steve tells him JG would make a good "handyman" ? Was that with a wink wink ? I thought Blob and JG had known each other from some bowling league or card playing entertainment a few years prior. Why was there no blogging about the second hour long tape being played. IMO, the first tape seemed to support Blob's and the defense theory about JG going off. This portion seemed fragmented, I kept waiting for the prosecution to get to the point. Or perhaps the point was just showing Blob's capability of being oblivious to any consequences of his actions. Anyone else feel like they were waiting for something meaningful to be added ? All I got was the timing of suggesting JG work for the Blob after Steve offers 2 cops and an Albanian.

The judge refused to allow a witness back into the courtroom because she alleged he had been drinking and she could smell it on him. Someone must have mentioned it was hand sanitizer as he left the courtroom sniffing his sleeve. Innocent until proven guilty ... ?

The introduction of Blob to JG was in 2011 ? Through Steve, just after Blob asked him if he knew anyone that would T-Bone a tennant ? And Steve tells him JG would make a good "handyman" ? Was that with a wink wink ? I thought Blob and JG had known each other from some bowling league or card playing entertainment a few years prior. Why was there no blogging about the second hour long tape being played. IMO, the first tape seemed to support Blob's and the defense theory about JG going off. This portion seemed fragmented, I kept waiting for the prosecution to get to the point. Or perhaps the point was just showing Blob's capability of being oblivious to any consequences of his actions. Anyone else feel like they were waiting for something meaningful to be added ? All I got was the timing of suggesting JG work for the Blob after Steve offers 2 cops and an Albanian.

I agree, Smallal, kept waiting for the one-two punch which never came. It seemed to be a more subtle point that Bob was looking for a hitman in Oct. '11 and Gentz was referred in Nov. to him which BB likely took as the requested hit guy. Also got out more corroboration of other witnesses that BB was shopping everywhere for a hitman and supports Gentz statements of BB wanting to t-bone someone. Bonus points: Blob is a sleaze who welches on debts and cheats people (i.e. rejected refrig. not Steve's).

As to BB's denials of hiring JG to murder Jane, the jury at this point probably doesn't believe a word he says.

Wonder if the defense to create doubt can find a tenant of Bob's who WAS beaten up during this time frame, deflecting away from Jane as the target ... Ha, that'll be the day.

Also, who is the mystery woman in the gallery that Blob turns and smiles at every day, per some bloggers?

____________________________________________________Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness.

The introduction of Blob to JG was in 2011 ? Through Steve, just after Blob asked him if he knew anyone that would T-Bone a tennant ? And Steve tells him JG would make a good "handyman" ? Was that with a wink wink ? I thought Blob and JG had known each other from some bowling league or card playing entertainment a few years prior. Why was there no blogging about the second hour long tape being played. IMO, the first tape seemed to support Blob's and the defense theory about JG going off. This portion seemed fragmented, I kept waiting for the prosecution to get to the point. Or perhaps the point was just showing Blob's capability of being oblivious to any consequences of his actions. Anyone else feel like they were waiting for something meaningful to be added ? All I got was the timing of suggesting JG work for the Blob after Steve offers 2 cops and an Albanian.

I agree, Smallal, kept waiting for the one-two punch which never came. It seemed to be a more subtle point that Bob was looking for a hitman in Oct. '11 and Gentz was referred in Nov. to him which BB likely took as the requested hit guy. Also got out more corroboration of other witnesses that BB was shopping everywhere for a hitman and supports Gentz statements of BB wanting to t-bone someone. Bonus points: Blob is a sleaze who welches on debts and cheats people (i.e. rejected refrig. not Steve's).

As to BB's denials of hiring JG to murder Jane, the jury at this point probably doesn't believe a word he says.

Wonder if the defense to create doubt can find a tenant of Bob's who WAS beaten up during this time frame, deflecting away from Jane as the target ... Ha, that'll be the day.

Also, who is the mystery woman in the gallery that Blob turns and smiles at every day, per some bloggers?

Remember that woman in the news several months ago the "New Woman in Bashara's Life"? She had befriended him and was writing him in jail? I wonder if it's her? She's said she's doing prison fellowship, but I think she was impressed to meet someone that had been on Dateline. As crazy as he is, I think.

The introduction of Blob to JG was in 2011 ? Through Steve, just after Blob asked him if he knew anyone that would T-Bone a tennant ? And Steve tells him JG would make a good "handyman" ? Was that with a wink wink ? I thought Blob and JG had known each other from some bowling league or card playing entertainment a few years prior. Why was there no blogging about the second hour long tape being played. IMO, the first tape seemed to support Blob's and the defense theory about JG going off. This portion seemed fragmented, I kept waiting for the prosecution to get to the point. Or perhaps the point was just showing Blob's capability of being oblivious to any consequences of his actions. Anyone else feel like they were waiting for something meaningful to be added ? All I got was the timing of suggesting JG work for the Blob after Steve offers 2 cops and an Albanian.

Is anyone bothered by the fact that Blob keeps trying to get a hold of Steve so desperately ? And why would he approach Steve to get rid of JG unless he tried to convince Steve it was to his benefit as well to eliminate JG. The thing about "throwing him under the bus" leads me to suspect that there was more to this introduction of JG to the Blob than just trying to find him a job as a handyman. Why would Blob ask Steve to put a hit on JG when he refused to help Blob put a hit on the troublesome tennant. However, afterward he does present JG to him. I am not getting why Blob would pick Steve to ask unless he thinks Steve would benefit as well. You know, "get on the same page with me by talking to my PI as well". Just speculation, coincidence or perhaps prosecutor thinks the same, doesn't have enough evidence and anyway the real target is the Blob.

What did Steve get out of wearing the wire and setting up the Blob ? Probably immunity from being charged as an accessory in providing the weapon(JG) to the Blob.

Last edited by smallal on Mon 27 Oct 2014, 6:13 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : added last thought)

Smallal, remember how Steve started crying in the preliminary about Jane's death, even though he'd never met her? He also said even the mafia doesn't kill wives. I think he was upset over any role he unwittingly played in her murder, felt sorry for Gentz being used, didn't want him killed, and generally had disdain for BB.

____________________________________________________Murder is unique in that it abolishes the party it injures, so that society has to take the place of the victim and on his behalf demand atonement or grant forgiveness.

smallal wrote:What did Steve get out of wearing the wire and setting up the Blob ? Probably immunity from being charged as an accessory in providing the weapon(JG) to the Blob.

Steve reached out to police/prosecution, in my opinion, because Bob had screwed him in business. I looked it up and found this article http://archive.freep.com/article/20120725/NEWS02/307250093/Bob-Bashara-ordered-stand-trial-murder-hire-plot where Tibaudo says Bashara is a man "who only screws people out of their money. He screws everyone out of their money."